Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_autovacuum: short, wide tables

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>,mark reid <mail(at)markreid(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org,Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum: short, wide tables
Date: 2005-07-08 18:54:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Tom Lane wrote:

>I'm having some second thoughts about allowing VACUUM on a toast table
>independently of its parent table --- it's a bit scary to be messing
>with the toast table when we have no lock at all on the parent.  It
>might work OK, but I'm not sure I want to take the risk.  If we simply
>expose toast tables in the stats views, what has to be done to
>autovacuum to get it to work properly?  ("Properly" in this case would
>mean "fire a VACUUM on the parent table if either it or its toast table
>look like they need vacuumed".)  Is this much worse than what you
>say above?

Oh well.... It sounded like a good idea :-)

No it's not much worse, in fact handling this is much like the way we 
handle vacuum analyze and analyze only separately.  So the 
infrastructure is mostly there, it will require some tweaks to the 
patch, but nothing large.


In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-07-08 19:38:23
Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum: short, wide tables
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-08 18:35:14
Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum: short, wide tables

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group